Same sex marriage-Massachusetts

[dmiller]

Quote from Trefor ---

--------------------------------------------------

Guns can kill people as we too often tragically hear about. Whereas the vast bulk of people no doubt keep them and use them responsibly, and they should have every right to continue to do so (bet that surprised ya), there are situations and circumstances where they are not appropriate.

--------------------------------------------------

Yes it DID surprise me!

Edited February 29, 2004 by Guest

[chwester]

If our society gets sick enough to legalize same sex marriage-there should at least be a constitutional amendment that the groom may not kiss the bride! Gross!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Proud to be an American

www.northpoint.org

www.anncoulter.org

[valerie52]

This is a part of the end time-prophecy ...The world is going to hell.

We will be paying for all this because we didn't have the balls to stop them at the beginning. Not allow them to teach our children, for instance.

Now they will get the same benifits as us.

That will cost us.

Things are going to get worse.

valerie52

[vickles]

I think its all in the perspective on our beliefs.

I don't mind gay people. It seems though that instead of marriage there should be other ways they could do things legally so that if the other partner dies they would legally have their belongings or money or responsible for medical. Even something with if they have kids together that the other one would get them. I think marriage might not be an answer.

If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.

virginia woolfe

[J0nny Ling0]

Right on Valerie...Shalom

[Mister P-Mosh]

quote:

---

Originally posted by valerie52:

This is a part of the end time-prophecy ...The world is going to hell.

We will be paying for all this because we didn't have the balls to stop them at the beginning. Not allow them to teach our children, for instance.

Now they will get the same benifits as us.

That will cost us.

Things are going to get worse.

valerie52

---

How much is it going to cost you? Did you bet someone $50 that gay people would never get married or something?

[vickles]

I don't understand why the world be coming to the end if gays were able to get married. Could you please explain why you believe that?

If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.

virginia woolfe

[LG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vickles:

It seems though that instead of marriage there should be other ways they could do things legally so that if the other partner dies they would legally have their belongings or money or responsible for medical. Even something with if they have kids together that the other one would get them.

---

All of those things are covered by existing laws, at least in Texas. A will, a medical power of attorney, and possibly a second-party adoption would do the trick.

[J0nny Ling0]

Valerie,

I have a message for you in your private topics...

Jonny

[mj412]

Genesis 2:18-24

18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone.

I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the Lord God had

formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the

birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would

name them; and whatever the man called each living creature,

that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock,

the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam

no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man

to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of

the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the

Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man,

and He brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now

bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,'

for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave

his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will

become one flesh.

MARRIAGE . . . IS WHAT?

In the movie The Princess Bride, our family always laughs when it

gets to the part where the man of the cloth says, in his pompous,

haughty way, "Marriage . . . is what brings us together today."

Who would have ever thought that in our society we'd be saying,

"Marriage is what tears us apart today"? A firestorm of

controversy has erupted over the simple concept of marriage.

Widely divergent views on the nature of marriage are dividing

people into two very different camps.

Perhaps it would be good for those of us who have committed

ourselves to living by the standards and principles of the Bible to

review what this God-breathed book says about marriage.

I'll quote some passages, and you draw some conclusions:

* "[Adam] said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of

my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out

of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother

and be united to his wife, and they will become

one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24).

* "Since there is so much immorality, each man should have

his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband

should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife

to her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:2-3).

* "Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning

the Creator 'made them male and female'?" (Matthew 19:4).

Then He quoted Genesis 2:24.

* "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage

bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the

sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4).

Do you think God might be saying something about the sanctity

of the male-female relationship with these references

to marriage? Or has society discovered a better way to

conduct marriage? Shouldn't we team up with the One who

created marriage?

Marriage, God's way, brings a man and a

woman together. --Dave Branon

[Trefor Heywood]

Long Gone:

quote:

---

Persons are guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Wishes and choices are not. If you are suggesting that the Constitution requires that all wishes or choices be equally treated, or that laws should treat all wishes or choices equally, that is ludicrous.

---

I am not suggesting that and indeed it would be difficult to do so. The fact that some people wish to pass a Constitutional amendment about marriage would seem to indicate to me that they are not at all confident that the Constitution does not already make such provision even though other laws do not.

chwester:

Gay women may like to dress up as brides but I don't think that many gay men do. :D-->

Valerie:

Do you think that gay people don't pay taxes? People have been seeing this or that as a sign of the times for the past two millenia. And what on earth does a teacher's sexuality have on their ability to teach?

MJ:

Quoting biblical references regarding heterosexual marriage is not the issue. A book that was canonically closed sixteen centuries ago cannot address all the issue of twenty first century life and experience. Homosexuality as a human condition rather than an act was unknown in those times.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[dmiller]

Trefor -- you state --

"The fact that some people wish to pass a Constitutional amendment about marriage would seem to indicate to me that they are not at all confident that the Constitution does not already make such provision even though other laws do not."

I have NO PROBLEM with the Constitution. I DO have a problem with those who are doing an "end run" around us, and trying to legitimacize something REGUARDLESS of said Constitution. If it takes an ammendment to stop them, I am all for it.

[Trefor Heywood]

dmiller:

From my standpoint those who are gunning for this must think the Constitution deficient in supporting their viewpoint.

The Supreme Court can only make judgements upon the Constitution as it stands. There is some interesting stuff regarding this and amendments that I will probably post.

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

Amending the U.S. Constitution: An Appreciation

by Adam DeBaugh

One correspondent recently wrote to a list-serve I

am a member of, "My hope is that, even if the amendment

should pass, it would be struck down in the courts as

discriminatory." I felt compelled to respond in this

way:

Unfortunately, the diabolical point of the religious

reich's attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution is that

once done, it can not be undone except by another

amendment. And that has only happened once in our

history. If the anti-gay marriage amendment passes,

it will be part of the U.S. Constitution and therefore

it will be part of the ultimate legal authority. No

court can strike down any part of the U.S. Constitution,

but rather courts judge other laws by what is in the

Constitution.

The good news in all of this is that it is rather

difficult to amend the Constitution. First, a

proposed amendment must pass both houses of

Congress by a two-thirds majority in each house

(the House of Representatives and the Senate).

Then the proposed amendment goes on to the states,

and three quarters of the state legislatures must

pass the proposed amendment before it can become part

of the U.S. Constitution. So the process doesn't

drag on indefinitely, the Congress usually places a

limit on the time a proposed amendment may be

considered, usually seven years. If seven years

elapse and 38 states have not yet ratified the

proposed amendment, then it dies.

Conversely, if only 13 states vote no to the

proposed amendment, it dies, because that means

that three quarters of the states can not have

ratified it.

At no point does the President have a role in the

amendment process (though he would be free to make

his opinion known as Resident Bush has done with

the anti-gay marriage amendment). He cannot veto

an amendment proposal passed by Congress, nor can

he veto a ratification.

It is interesting to note that the Constitutional

Amendment process has only been used 27 times (the

first 10 times are what we call the Bill of Rights

and were passed with the original adoption of the

Constitution on December 15, 1791). No Constitutional

Amendment has been passed which has restricted the

rights of American citizens, but only to expand them.

(It may be argued that the 18th Amendment, passed in

1919, which instituted Prohibition, [and which said,

"the manufacture, sale, or transportation of

intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof

into, or the exportation thereof from the United

States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction

thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."]

restricted the rights of Americans to drink alcoholic

beverages. In any case, the 18th Amendment was

repealed by the passage of the 21st Amendment in

1933.)

But no amendment singled out any class of American

citizen for legalized discrimination. Constitutional

Amendments have only been used to expand the rights

of Americans:

the 13th Amendment in 1865 abolishing slavery;

the 15th Amendment in 1870 declaring that "the right

of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be

denied or abridged by the United States or by any

State on account of race, color, or previous

condition of servitude;"

the 19th Amendment in 1920, giving women the right

to vote;

the 23rd Amendment in 1961, giving residents of the

District of Columbia (Washington, DC) the right to

vote for the President and Vice President of the U.S.;

the 24th Amendment in 1964, which banned the use of

poll taxes to deny the poor the right to vote; and

the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting

age to 18.

Should an Amendment be passed that restricted marriage

to one man and one woman, effectively excluding same-

gender couples, it would be the first time in American

history that the foundational document of our law, the

Constitution, was used to deny people rights. Such a

shameful legislative act would forever alter the nature

of the United States of America.

Can anyone of good conscience and faith support this

egregious attempt to subvert the very nature of the

American experiment in democracy?

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[dmiller]

Trefor -- am looking forward to that post.

I hate to show my ignorance here, but what the heck does "Cymru Am Byth" mean?? -->

I'll check the thread later for the definition, I ordered out Chinese food for tonight! :D-->

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

Walter Cronkite King Features Syndicate

February 20, 2004

The forthcoming presidential election will be decided on several issues of

profound importance to the nation's future. It is unfortunate that the

debates about them will be confounded by a religious issue that does not

belong on the political agenda. The issue is that of same-sex marriage.

A majority of our people identify themselves as Christian, and many of the

faithful believe that they have received the word of God and have a mission

to pass it on to those who do not believe with the same fervor as themselves.

Their faith is admirable: This might be a better world if we all obeyed our

religious lessons with similar devotion.

But that, of course, is not the case. And the zealots who follow the

leadership of the so-called religious right are, in their zeal, threatening

us with an ugly religious war, fought on the battleground of the presidential

election. The zealots are determined to make a political issue of their

conviction that same-sex marriages are so immoral as to threaten the

well-being of the nation, if not civilization itself. The more fanatical

among them even claim that same-sex marriages would encourage homosexuality

to the degree that the nation's birthrate would be endangered.

Whatever the unlikelihood of its more drastic fears coming to pass, the

Conservative Christian Right is entitled to its beliefs and, utilizing our

constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, press and religion, to pursue

its determination to criminalize same-sex marriage.

There are many of us Christians who recall our Sunday-school teachers and

later our ministers dwelling upon the sympathy and respect— indeed, the

tolerance—for others that, they taught, was basic to our Christian religion.

We who believe this are compelled to ask: Where is the tolerance, where is the

Christian spirit in the effort to criminalize the personal choices that do

not physically threaten others? Where is the Christian tolerance in the

conceit of those Christian leaders who dare suggest that they alone can be

trusted to properly interpret the lessons of their Bible, and who would

impose that belief on this nation's highly diverse peoples?

Besides wishing to criminalize individual behavior, the more radical members

of the Christian right would like their proposed federal law to dictate what

individual churches could do in regard to recognizing or performing same-sex

marriages. Shouldn't that decision be made by the individual church or

denomination? What possible excuse is there for government intervention in

this decision?

As the Christian-right leadership presses this matter, which they depict as a

moral issue, they threaten a religious war that will split our nation at a

time in our lives when unity would be helpful in attacking far more critical

problems on which the future of our nation depends—our foreign policy, the

economy, education, medical care and the environment, to name a few.

In the difficult days ahead, the tolerant among us—Republican, Democratic or

Independent, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or non-believer— are going to have to

try to preach another morality, and that is the morality of tolerance.

Reach the writer at mail@cronkitecolumn.com

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

dmiller:

"Cymru am Byth" means "Wales for ever" in the Welsh language.

And as it is our national day...(March 1)

"Dydd Gwyl Dewi Hapus i Bawb"!

"A Happy St David;s day to you all!"

*Throws electronic daffodils around*

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[excathedra]

well happy st. david's day to you dear tref !!!!

love from a gal with some welsh blood in her

?

[Trefor Heywood]

You too ex!

a ti hefyd ex!

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[Trefor Heywood]

quote:

---

From the Boston Globe...

SCOT LEHIGH

A trend toward acceptance of gays

By Scot Lehigh, 2/27/2004

THIS WEEK President Bush may have transformed an election into a

cultural war. By calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay

marriage, the Republican incumbent has taken an issue he had

heretofore treated only gingerly and thrust it to the center of

American politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

Perhaps that was predictable. In politics as in physics, every

action triggers an equal and opposite reaction. Thus the president's

pronouncement was the conservative reaction to the Massachusetts

Supreme Judicial Court's pro-gay marriage rulings as well as to the

same-sex marriages taking place in San Francisco.

Now the nation faces the very question Massachusetts has been

wrestling with: whether to amend the Constitution to preserve the

traditional understanding of marriage or to let legal events in the

states run their own course.

That's a difficult issue to debate in an election year, when a

dispassionate discussion is hard to have. Which is why, as people

approach the issue, it's worth thinking about the changes in

attitudes we've seen toward gays and lesbians in our own lifetimes.

Only a few decades ago, a public school teacher couldn't make his or

her homosexuality known without a very real fear of being fired.

As late as 1985, the notion that gays and lesbians might serve as

foster parents sent some people in this state into apoplexy -- and

forced the usually progressive Michael Dukakis to formulate a policy

that for a time served as a near ban on such placements. In the same

period, a bill to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in

employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations stalled in

the state Legislature because of paranoia about AIDS. If the

antidiscrimination legislation passed, one conservative lawmaker

warned, "Boston might become a mecca for AIDS."

Today, out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians can teach in the public

schools without fear of termination. Homosexuals function as foster

parents, adopt children, and raise families without much fuss -- but

also without the rights, privileges, and protections the state and

the nation grant to married couples.

The civil rights movement, though often invoked, isn't completely

apt as an analogy for the gay marriage struggle, in that the

discrimination African-Americans suffered, particularly in the

South, was both more pronounced and less avoidable than that which

homosexuals endure today. Still, it should be instructive for

everyone to recall the remorse the nation now feels about the way it

once treated people of other races, ethnicities, and creeds.Until

the 1960s -- which is to say, within the memory of many of today's

adults -- large segments of America viewed interracial marriage as

somehow posing a threat to the underpinnings of society. Today all

but unreconstructed bigots yawn at that notion. Similarly, though of

greater vintage, the ostracism that greeted the waves of Irish

immigrants to Massachusetts and the prejudice that Catholics once

faced here stand as reminders of the way divisions that now appear

trivial were once used to rationalize exclusion.

In all those cases, claims of tradition, of the natural order, and

of religion were invoked as arguments against broadening society's

notion of inclusion. And in all those cases, the lessons of history

are clear to those who choose to learn them.

Fears about people different from the majority were misplaced. And

those who were against broader inclusion stood on the wrong side.

On an issue this heated, it's probably unrealistic to expect those

with a strict religious orientation to change heartfelt views, at

least in the short term.

But ours, after all, is a civil society, and the marriage right in

question is that of civil marriage. Surely, people who hold public

office -- that is, who have sought and accepted the role of deciding

questions of fairness not only for themselves but for other citizens

as well -- have a particular responsibility to look beyond current

controversy and attitudes in search of a larger sense of what is

just.

Can voting to amend either the state or the federal constitution --

sacred documents that belong to us all -- in a way that allows

contemporary prejudice to limit the possibility of future rights

ever square with that responsibility?

History's verdict is clear.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.

---

Trefor Heywood

"Cymru Am Byth!"

[LG]

Trefor,

Anyone can cut and paste articles, essays, etc. Anyone can also simply dismiss them as "trash" like you did one you didn't agree with. I won't do that. I will say a few things, though.

quote:

---

The fact that some people wish to pass a Constitutional amendment about marriage would seem to indicate to me that they are not at all confident that the Constitution does not already make such provision even though other laws do not.

---

Nope. They're confident in the Constitution. They're not confident in a relative few judges, some of whom have not only invented "constitutional" rights that aren't there, but have also presumed to redefine marriage, contrary to all precedent.

Now, about the articles:

quote:

---

the diabolical point of the religious reich's attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution

---

Diabolical? The "religious reich?" Who is being hateful and bigoted?

Whether or not an amendment passes, attempting to amend the constitution is a right and the processes by which the constitution may be amended are clearly spelled out in the constitution. It's pretty damn hypocritical to condemn people for exercising a clear, incontrovertible, constitutionally provided right, while claiming to be seeking a "right" that has never existed in any State or the USA, from the earliest of colonial times forward. It's also hypocritical to condemn as bigots people who disagree that gay "marriage" is a right, when that "right" does not exist in your country either. Damn British bigots! (Previous three words not serious.)

quote:

---

The zealots are determined to make a political issue of their conviction that same-sex marriages are so immoral as to threaten the well-being of the nation, if not civilization itself.

---

I'll grant that some of them go a bit overboard, but it's not them that made this an issue. However as an issue, it is rightfully a political one.

quote:

---

...its determination to criminalize same-sex marriage.

---

This is disingenuous, to the point of being a lie. Nobody is seeking to criminalize anything.

quote:

---

Where is the tolerance, where is the Christian spirit in the effort to criminalize the personal choices that do not physically threaten others?

---

More of the same. This is an effort to constitutionally protect the definition of marriage to be the same as it has always been in the USA, from the earliest colonial times and even in the British law from which the definition derived before that. AND, Trefor, the definition they seek to write into the constitution is the same definition that your country uses.

quote:

---

Besides wishing to criminalize individual behavior, the more radical members of the Christian right would like their proposed federal law to dictate what individual churches could do in regard to recognizing or performing same-sex marriages. Shouldn't that decision be made by the individual church or denomination? What possible excuse is there for government intervention in this decision?

---

Cronkite is a liar! They're not seeking to criminalize individual behavior. They're not seeking to dictate anything to churches. If the amendment passes, churches can still perform same-sex marriages all they want, just as they can now. Those church marriages will not be recognized as civil marriages, just as they are not now, and have never been. (AND, BTW, Trefor, as they are not now and have never been in your country, either.)

I've said enough for now.

Edited March 2, 2004 by Guest

[LG]

No I haven't said enough.

Civil marriage in Trefor's country is a legal union of one man and one woman. There are no same-sex civil marriages in the United Kingdom. They considered the matter and decided against same-sex civil marriages.

[Zixar]

I thought the piece on the amendments was amusing--the author claims none were discriminatory, but the 26th Amendment CLEARLY and BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATES against all civic-minded, rational seventeen-year olds, and cruelly denies them the sovereign franchise. Fascist bastards! "Oh, sure, we can go out and kill ourselves in automobiles, but we can't vote to raise the speed limit? Bloody ageist goosesteppers!" :)-->

Isn't it about time someone got bored and derailed this thread with talk of snowcones or some such?

Let's have a leek for Trefor! Up the Welsh!

[chwester]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vickles:

I don't understand why the world be coming to the end if gays were able to get married. Could you please explain why you believe that?

If you do not tell the truth about yourself you can not tell it about other people.

virginia woolfe

---

Vick-

Review what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. The same thing may not happen in the age of grace, but it shows how much God hates sexual immorality-including homosexuality. The U.S. will definitely pay a big price for approving such immoral behavior. We are already paying a big price for approving immoral behavior among heterosexuals(premarital sex). And the ones who suffer the most are the ones who participate in it.

Proud to be an American

www.northpoint.org

www.anncoulter.org

Edited March 2, 2004 by Guest

[Rocky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by valerie52:

This is a part of the end time-prophecy ...The world is going to hell.

We will be paying for all this because we didn't have the balls to stop them at the beginning. Not allow them to teach our children, for instance.

Now they will get the same benifits as us.

That will cost us.

Things are going to get worse.

valerie52

---

Valerie,

I pose these questions not to be argumentative, but because I genuinely don't understand:

What will we be paying?

What, specifically, will we be paying for?

"They" will not get the same benefits as us. What benefits?

What will it cost us?

How are things going to get worse?

I just don't see it yet.

I don't see it from the bible. I don't see it from history.

Please explain. Thanks.

:D--> You talkin to me?